PocketBase MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose what happens on success (e.g., returns session token), failure modes (e.g., invalid credentials), security implications (e.g., rate limits, password handling), or side effects (e.g., session creation). This is inadequate for an authentication tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Authenticate a user with email and password') directly contributes to understanding the tool, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of authentication (involving security, session management, and potential side effects), no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter coverage (67%), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error handling, prerequisites, and behavioral context, making it incomplete for safe and effective tool invocation by an AI agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 67%, with the 'email' and 'password' parameters well-documented in the schema, but the 'options' object lacks detailed descriptions for its 'expand' and 'fields' properties. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, merely restating 'email and password' without explaining the optional 'options' or its use cases, so it meets the baseline for moderate schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Authenticate') and target ('a user') with the method ('with email and password'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pb_auth_register' or 'pb_admin_login', which would require more specific context about authentication scope or user type.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., user must be registered), exclusions (e.g., not for admin users), or comparisons to siblings like 'pb_auth_register' for new users or 'pb_admin_login' for administrative access, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.